John, these laws were for business places like locker rooms, restrooms, tanning salons, changing rooms, etc.
Is there a law for your own house, filming yourself?
Filming Sex
- Thread starter Orleander
- Start date
John, these laws were for business places like locker rooms, restrooms, tanning salons, changing rooms, etc.
Is there a law for your own house, filming yourself?
there was a guy who got into trouble for putting a camera in his step-daughter's room and filmed her change clothes. It was his house and there was nothing that could be done.
So while it may not be ethical, I'm not seeing how cameras in your own home are illegal. Nanny-cam for instance.
Cameras in your own home are not illegal. You can legally film yourself having sex with someone who doesn't know the cameras are there. The only way you can get charged with rape is if you film yourself actually committing the crime of rape.
However, I would not film someone without their consent. Just because it's not against the law, doesn't mean it's not a violation of that person's trust and freewill.
However, I would not film someone without their consent. Just because it's not against the law, doesn't mean it's not a violation of that person's trust and freewill.
I'm uncertain if filming someone having sex without consent is legal or not, though if you intend to distribute, that is certainly illegal.
Splitting a hair
There is a difference between propriety under the law, and propriety according to custom.
If the film is a masturbatory aid, then yes, it is part of the sexual act. I do not believe the law generally agrees with this proposition. But psychologically, and socially, yes, it's a sexual violation just as much as presuming that a blowjob means consent to vaginal penetration despite the word "No".
There is a difference between propriety under the law, and propriety according to custom.
If the film is a masturbatory aid, then yes, it is part of the sexual act. I do not believe the law generally agrees with this proposition. But psychologically, and socially, yes, it's a sexual violation just as much as presuming that a blowjob means consent to vaginal penetration despite the word "No".
It's not clear to me why the fact that it's a masturbatory aid would cause it to be "part of the sex act." If a shoe store clerk is aroused by feet and secretly videotapes his female customers trying on different pairs of shoes for later masturbatory use, would you also consider that a "sexual violation"?
Edit: On a side note, based on Orleander's explanation that the spouse was not told because "it would make the spouse self-conscious and not natural," it wasn't clear to me whether or not the spouse tells their partner about it right after the act or not. Keeping it a secret seems much worse than saying "by the way, guess what I just taped!" and informing the spouse and giving them a chance to say "What?!? Erase that thing!" right afterward.
Last edited:
So its not the filming that unethical, its keeping it a secret after the fact that is. That's kind of what I thought.
what? How is a physical act on a persons body the same as filming?
distantcube
Registered Member
That sort of thing happens quite a bit. Some individuals with a foot fetish will videotape that sort of thing in public. Is it ethical if the individual isn't aware of it? Since they are showing their bare feet to the public, why would they care if they are being filmed?
When you're having sex with someone, there is usually a reasonable expectation of privacy (unless you're an exhibitionist).
fine, but my hair is a mess, so no giving me crap about it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeZ0yj_89_c
Intimate filming of another without their knowledge isn't ethical.
The test here is resonable expectation of privacy. Unless the sex is happening in public, their is a reasonable expectation of privacy on the part of the other party. Breaking that expectation without forknowledge on the other person's part is not ethical.
Use of the tape after the fact is irrelevant, though it could certainly aggrevate the situation.
Just ask first. Anytime you are hiding stuff from your partner you are on shaky ground.
It's one of those things, isn't it: Getting consent is just a turn-off?
Because it has sexual value. There are some circumstances under which one might be able to argue it's not part of the sex act: a sting, for instance. Or "clinical research". But when it's for the purpose of arousal, either in the act or after the fact, there's no separating it from the sexual act.
Yeah, sure.
Nasor said:
Because it has sexual value. There are some circumstances under which one might be able to argue it's not part of the sex act: a sting, for instance. Or "clinical research". But when it's for the purpose of arousal, either in the act or after the fact, there's no separating it from the sexual act.
Yeah, sure.
I agree. Its unethical. Is it illegal?
What about if the clerk doesn't take a video recording, but afterwards goes and rubs one off in a toilet cubicle?
That's hard to say. Covert surveillance can be illegal, but statues vary wildly.
This and that
I cannot conceive of a mechanism by which we might regulate acts of imagination. The biggest risk there is getting caught mid-flog.
The common link is that it is not what a person consents to.
Think of it this way: Have you an exhibitionist streak? (That's purely rhetorical.) When I was a teenager, a friend and I once joked that when one of us finally got laid, we would call the other beforehand if possible. It's from an old television joke about a first kiss, that a friend was in the bushes with a stopwatch, timing the kiss. (I'm afraid to try to recall what show that was, because it was likely a crappy '80s sitcom.) The idea of our joke was simple; one would get laid, the other would surreptitiously watch.
Now, if you're up for having sex in front of people, that's one thing. But if you're operating under a reasonable expectation of privacy?
And no, I can't say it ever worked out that my friend was around to watch. Probably for the best, that.
But it's a matter of what one consents to, and also good faith. Questions like these have, over time, resulted in some ridiculous sex policies, including one college that apparently attempted to require partners to obtain consent at each new stage of the act. And each consent required a direct affirmative. "May I kiss you?" Yes. "May I open your shirt?" Yes. "May I unhook your bra?" Yes. "May I kiss your breasts?" Yes. And, as the story circulating around campuses in the early and mid-'90s went, even the merest hint of the negative, such as, "I don't mind", rendered the consent insufficient.
In the end, it might be anti-feminist legend, as there was an anti-PC hysteria in the early 1990s, but it still testifies to how strange things can be when the basic considerations omit good faith and decent courtesy. I mean, even if it was merely a legend, someone had to think of it.
Copernicus66 said:
I cannot conceive of a mechanism by which we might regulate acts of imagination. The biggest risk there is getting caught mid-flog.
• • •
Orleander said:
The common link is that it is not what a person consents to.
Think of it this way: Have you an exhibitionist streak? (That's purely rhetorical.) When I was a teenager, a friend and I once joked that when one of us finally got laid, we would call the other beforehand if possible. It's from an old television joke about a first kiss, that a friend was in the bushes with a stopwatch, timing the kiss. (I'm afraid to try to recall what show that was, because it was likely a crappy '80s sitcom.) The idea of our joke was simple; one would get laid, the other would surreptitiously watch.
Now, if you're up for having sex in front of people, that's one thing. But if you're operating under a reasonable expectation of privacy?
And no, I can't say it ever worked out that my friend was around to watch. Probably for the best, that.
But it's a matter of what one consents to, and also good faith. Questions like these have, over time, resulted in some ridiculous sex policies, including one college that apparently attempted to require partners to obtain consent at each new stage of the act. And each consent required a direct affirmative. "May I kiss you?" Yes. "May I open your shirt?" Yes. "May I unhook your bra?" Yes. "May I kiss your breasts?" Yes. And, as the story circulating around campuses in the early and mid-'90s went, even the merest hint of the negative, such as, "I don't mind", rendered the consent insufficient.
In the end, it might be anti-feminist legend, as there was an anti-PC hysteria in the early 1990s, but it still testifies to how strange things can be when the basic considerations omit good faith and decent courtesy. I mean, even if it was merely a legend, someone had to think of it.
Last edited:
I wasn't talking about regulation, but about whether you also consider it a 'sexual violation'. The fact that at this time we don't have the technology to read minds doesn't change the 'sexual violation' status, surely? If the clerk keeps the video tape to himself and masturbates to it, how is that any different from him masturbating to memories in his head?
Another dilemma with the clerk scenario is that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.
I didn't really think it was so hard to tell the difference
I'm split on that. I generally say no, but, to the other, I've generally had this weird thing about not fantasizing about people I know. Doesn't mean it's never happened, but I fail to see the point of doing so.
On the one hand, I want to simply say, "If you can't tell the difference between a videotape and a thought ...."
But that's not helpful, since apparently you can't.
A fantasy can be of an act never performed. The videotape, in this scenario, cannot.
If you lose the fantasy, there is no chance of it ending up in someone else's hands. Or all over them.
The fantasy can occur without the other person's participation. The act recorded on the videotape cannot.
If people expected their feet to be filmed in a particular shoe store for the purposes of someone else's sexual gratification, that shoe store would go out of business.
Copernicus66 said:
I'm split on that. I generally say no, but, to the other, I've generally had this weird thing about not fantasizing about people I know. Doesn't mean it's never happened, but I fail to see the point of doing so.
On the one hand, I want to simply say, "If you can't tell the difference between a videotape and a thought ...."
But that's not helpful, since apparently you can't.
A fantasy can be of an act never performed. The videotape, in this scenario, cannot.
If you lose the fantasy, there is no chance of it ending up in someone else's hands. Or all over them.
The fantasy can occur without the other person's participation. The act recorded on the videotape cannot.
If people expected their feet to be filmed in a particular shoe store for the purposes of someone else's sexual gratification, that shoe store would go out of business.
pineapplepizza
Registered Senior Member
I would think she could tell but If he had some hidden camera then no I don't think that's right at all. They would have to form some kind of agreement...